W.H. Beard Dredging Co. v. Hughes

• Decision Date: 27 January 1902
• Citation: 113 F. 680
• Parties: W. H. BEARD DREDGING CO. v. HUGHES et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

113 F. 680

W. H. BEARD DREDGING CO. v. HUGHES et al.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

January 27, 1902

Addoms Hinman & Smith, for libelant.

Robinson Biddle & Ward, for respondents.

ADAMS District Judge.

This is an action brought to recover some unpaid hire and damages for a breach of a charter of the libelant's dredge Samson and three scows, known as Nos. 1, 2, and 3; also for damages alleged to have been caused to two of the scows by the negligent manner in which they were used. The charter was a verbal one, confirmed by a letter dated March 9, 1901 as follows:

'Mess. Hughes Bros. & Bangs, 1 Madison Av., N.Y.-- Gentlemen: We herewith confirm the verbal agreement made on the 8th inst. with your Mr. Morrison, which was as follows: We agree to furnish the combination dredge Samson, with crew of eight men and equipment, for dredging at New Haven, Conn., also three scows, No. IX, 572 yards, No. 2X, 643 yards, and No. 3X, 644 yards, U.S. Govt. measurement, at one hundred and fifty ($150.00) per day; time to begin when the plant commences work at New Haven; minimum time to be three months. You are to tow the plant from New York, and to return it to New York when the work is finished, and to furnish coal and water to the dredge at your expense. Loss of time caused by breakdown of dredge in excess of thirty minutes to be charged against the plant at the rate of twelve ($12.00) dollars per hour. Payments to be made on the 15th of each month for work of the preceding month. The dredge is to be rigged with a dipper. Should you wish to equip her with a clamshell bucket, it can be shipped on at any time. Sundays and holidays are not to be included in working time.

'Yours, truly,

The W. H. Beard Dredging Co., 'By William Beard, Pres.'

The vessels were delivered to the respondents, under the contract, on the 18th day of March, and were returned to the libelant on the 3d day of May. The respondents admit a breach of the contract, and liability on their part for hire from May 3d to May 16th, at which time the dredge was sold by the libelant. A question arises whether the sale of the dredge relieved the respondents from subsequent liability under the contract. The further claim for damages to the vessels is in consequence of injuries received by them while in possession of the respondents, the theory of the libelant being that a failure to return them uninjured imposed liability upon the...